Posted on 02/08/2017 11:53:10 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Which GOP do you belong to? That's a question every Republican has been pondering since Donald Trump commandeered the party and won the White House.
There is, first, the old Grand Old Party — the party of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and an array of conservative movement activists, think tank staffers, journalists, and lobbyists. This party favors lower taxes (especially on the wealthy), less regulation, and smaller government, except when it comes to military spending, which it aims to increase to maintain America's position of global dominance and role as "leader of the free world."
Then there are the Trumpists — populist and nationalist Republicans (like White House senior counselor Stephen Bannon) who blend a mania for cutting taxes and government programs with an enthusiasm for trade tariffs, border walls, and immigration bans from majority-Muslim countries. This GOP also promises to increase defense spending, but not to contribute to the leadership of anything. It advocates putting "America first," by which it means that the United States should do whatever it wants anywhere it wants, including, perhaps, "taking the oil" from Iraq, backing away from our commitments to NATO, and turning a blind eye to Vladimir Putin's aggression in Eastern Europe....
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
I would post the same comments using my real name. I do so all the time on Facebook. I’m far more active there.
Ronald Reagan - because both of his names start with the same letter! (I am so smart! Do I get an award?)
I consider it a warning sign whenever anyone uses quasi-derogatory labels like “Trumpists”; that is one reason why I was turned off to Rush Limbaugh.
Constitutionalism is a naive, dead and irrelevant ideology.
Sadly, so is mainstream conservatism.
Do a Google image search for "at least I still have the Constitution " for easier understanding.
So true. I think Trump won over most of us here on FR well before the convention. It was well before the convention when it became obvious Trump was going to be up against Hillary. I was leery because of being burned so many times in the past but Trump was the only choice once he took command of the primary season. Everything since has been so far beyond my expectations and no doubt many here as well that it’s like living a dream and not wanting to wake up.
There was a thread posted here a while ago which I can’t find now which was a list of to do items Trump planned once he assumed office and it was jaw dropping how good it was. It was like a committee here at FR had drawn it up. My thoughts were if even a fraction of it gets done we’ll be on cloud nine for a very long time. So far it seems to be being implemented.
Not at all. It is the foundation of our system.
Very inspirational. Is that Shakespeare?
My observation of the Holy Order of the Constitutionalists the past 20 years is:
Finding 1001 excuses to not take action against the Democrats, even when the fate of the country lies in the balance.
Imagine a Thurston Howell the Third voice announcing this: "We can't do that! It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL!"
It's a posture that has been defeated every single time, quite easily.
A purist strict Constitutionalist should be an academic that offers advice. Not anywhere near a leadership position.
You’re wrong. That is not constitutionalists — that’s RINOs. The Establishment.
We’re the ones who have been fighting that. We need to put more of us in office. If you want to restrain and reduce government, then constitutionalists are the people you want. Populists aren’t going to do it. At least not fully. And we know the Establishment won’t.
Do I take it, then, that you’re perfectly fine with violating the Constitution if it suits your policy objectives? Because that’s not a conservative position.
Very true.
Lots of people are fine with violating the Constitution because their favorite politician is not a natural born citizen.
The others are Democrats in R jerseys.
Rush was using Trumpsters, sounds like dumpsters, just to be derisive, turned me off too.
He wanted the ineligible Cubanadian.
The vast majority of people — including many people more expert on the Constitution and much more devoted to it than you seem to be — completely disagree with your partisan interpretation.
Your CDS is showing.
People who are born Canadians are not natural born citizens of the US.
When and how did he acquire US citizenship?
CRBA would be required, when was it filed?
He acquired US citizenship at birth, as you well know.
Not without a CRBA, when was it filed?
Do you need a CRBA?
Again, contrary to what you want to believe, he acquired American citizenship at birth. Period.
Your CDS is showing. It’s a common problem here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.